Electoral College

[billvon 3,118]

>Since we are the United States, and not United People of America,
>then why shuold a state get more then 1 vote.

Because both people and states are represented in our federal government. Note our senate; 2 votes per state, period. (Means the same as one vote per state when it comes to passing bills.) Note the house; representation based on state population, so more populous states have a greater say in which laws are passed.

So we have a mix of the two - which is also what the EC is.

[pop 0]

Quote

>Since we are the United States, and not United People of America,
>then why shuold a state get more then 1 vote.

Because both people and states are represented in our federal government. Note our senate; 2 votes per state, period. (Means the same as one vote per state when it comes to passing bills.) Note the house; representation based on state population, so more populous states have a greater say in which laws are passed.

So we have a mix of the two - which is also what the EC is.

Bill at first you say "That's what it comes down to. If we are the united _people_ of america, then a vote per person makes more sense. If we are the united _states_ of america, then the electoral college makes more sense." Then you say "So we have a mix of the two - which is also what the EC is".

So which one is it?
-- If we are the united _states_ of america, then the electoral college makes more sense
or
-- A mix of the two - which is also what the EC is.

At first you say its one or the other. Now you say its a mix. I say give all people one vote if we are the UPA or give each state one vote if we are USA. Or make the EC fair and truly represent the population's votes.

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[Channman 2]

Quote

>Since we are the United States, and not United People of America,
>then why shuold a state get more then 1 vote.

Because both people and states are represented in our federal government. Note our senate; 2 votes per state, period. (Means the same as one vote per state when it comes to passing bills.) Note the house; representation based on state population, so more populous states have a greater say in which laws are passed.

So we have a mix of the two - which is also what the EC is.

Its must be a tough job being "Moderator" and "Teacher" at the same time. Reading several of your post in regards to this topic, has been far more educational than the Civic Classes I recieved in Government Schools.

[rehmwa 2]

now you're just being obtuse on purpose

Quote

Or make the EC fair and truly represent the population's votes.

and this is so subjective as to make no sense at all

I think the thread has run out of steam and is coasting in circles

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

,.. Or make the EC fair and truly represent the population's votes.

Since you are convinced that proportional representation is best for the EC, do you also advocate it for the House of Representatives?

[billvon 3,118]

>So which one is it?

It's both. The constitution was written to give the states a lot of power, but kept some provisions for individual representation. Here's a good overview from the legal section of about.com:

=============
Six Foundational Principles

The Constitution is built on six basic principles. These are deeply ingrained in the mindset and landscape of US Government.

* Popular Sovereignty - This principle states that the source of governmental power lies with the people. This belief stems from the idea that government should be for the benefit of its citizens. If the government is not protecting the people, it should be dissolved.

* Limited Government - Since the people give government its power, government itself is limited to the power given to it by them. In other words, the US government does not derive its power from itself. It must follow its own laws and it can only act using powers given to it by the people.

* Separation of Powers - As stated previously, the US Government is divided into three branches so that no one branch has all the power. Each branch has its own purpose: to make the laws, execute the laws, and interpret the laws.

* Checks and Balances - In order to further protect the citizens, the constitution set up a system of checks and balances. Basically, each branch of government has a certain number of checks it can use to ensure the other branches do not become too powerful. For example, the president can veto legislation, the Supreme Court can declare acts of Congress unconstitutional, and the Senate must approve treaties and presidential appointments.

* Judicial Review - This is a power that allows the Supreme Court to decide whether acts and laws are unconstitutional. This was established with Marbury v. Madison in 1803.

* Federalism - One of the most complicated foundations of the US is the principle of federalism. This is the idea that the central government does not control all the power in the nation. States also have powers reserved to them. This division of powers does overlap and sometimes leads to problems such as what happened with the response to Hurricane Katrina between the state and federal governments.
==================

The senate represents the principle of federalism; congress represents the principle of popular sovereignty. The EC is a combination of the two.

[pop 0]

Quote

Quote

,.. Or make the EC fair and truly represent the population's votes.

Since you are convinced that proportional representation is best for the EC, do you also advocate it for the House of Representatives?

Yes. Shouldnt we be consistent in our way of thinking?

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[pop 0]

Quote

I think the thread has run out of steam and is coasting in circles

We finally agree on something

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Since you are convinced that proportional representation is best for the EC, do you also advocate it for the House of Representatives?

I think one of the VERY MOST UN-American things is the Gerymandering of districts....

I would do away with that stupidity.... and make no districts at all.. just do it by the number of people in the state.. you get X amount of representatives in the House.

That way you could get rid of all those SAFE districts based on the 2 party system based on wealth and race etc... in given districts.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

I would do away with that stupidity.... and make no districts at all.. just do it by the number of people in the state.. you get X amount of representatives in the House.

Winner take all or proportional Rep?

Edited to add: A PR system in the house would allow smaller parties to gain seats.

[billvon 3,118]

>I think one of the VERY MOST UN-American things is the Gerymandering of districts....

Sadly, that is now a uniquely american way of getting your guy into office. It's quite american, although it shouldn't be.

[Amazon 7]

It should be proportional... based on the amount of votes.. period..

That would open up the race to REAL Independents and Libertarians etc.. not REpublicans posing as libertarians.

Or Socialists posing as Democrats.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

I agree. The PR system has stability issues in parliamentary systems like Israel and Italy, but the US congressional system seems to be very suited to it. Is the first past the post system mandated in the Federal constitution or could it be changed state by state? I seem to recall the method of choosing senators was changed one state at a time.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I seem to recall the method of choosing senators was changed one state at a time.

[Lesson]
Bzzzzt! It hapened in one fell swoop.
Originally, under Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution, each state's Senators were chosen by that state's Legislature. Then the 17th Amendment was passed, which mandated that Senators be elected by popular vote of the state's citizens.
[/Lesson]

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I think one of the VERY MOST UN-American things is the Gerymandering of districts....

It's been around since 1812. It's as American as apple pie, which I really don't like much, either.

Quote

I would do away with that stupidity.... and make no districts at all.. just do it by the number of people in the state.. you get X amount of representatives in the House.

I don't like that much, either. Who chooses who gets to be a Rep? The political establishment chooses. And you'd end up with the far right and the far left.

I do, however, agree with redistricting in somewhat reasonable geographic terms.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Since you are convinced that proportional representation is best for the EC, do you also advocate it for the House of Representatives?

I think one of the VERY MOST UN-American things is the Gerymandering of districts....

I would do away with that stupidity.... and make no districts at all.. just do it by the number of people in the state.. you get X amount of representatives in the House.

That way you could get rid of all those SAFE districts based on the 2 party system based on wealth and race etc... in given districts.

The idea of having each Senator represent his/her the entire state, but Congresshumans represent only the citizens of a given district (and requiring them to be residents of the district they represent) is to provide a means by which all people will have at least one form of "local" representation in Congress.

That being said, I agree with you re: gerrymandering. It stinks.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

I think one of the VERY MOST UN-American things is the Gerymandering of districts....

It's been around since 1812. It's as American as apple pie, which I really don't like much, either.

Quote

I would do away with that stupidity.... and make no districts at all.. just do it by the number of people in the state.. you get X amount of representatives in the House.

I don't like that much, either. Who chooses who gets to be a Rep? The political establishment chooses. And you'd end up with the far right and the far left.

.

Like the primary system produces?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Jeanne: What would you think of this as Washington's congressional districts? http://www.rangevoting.org/SSHR/wa_final.png

It is base don an algorithm.

You gotta like Colorado's - http://www.rangevoting.org/SSHR/co_final.png. It's tricky because the population is centered in I-25.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SivaGanesha 2]

Most of the comments on this thread have addressed the question as to whether the way of assigning EC votes to states (1 EC vote per House rep plus 2 votes for the 2 Senators) is fair.

But another aspect to the EC is that the members of the EC are not just anonymous numbers--they are human beings who usually, but not always, do what they are expected to do. Once in awhile we get a "faithless elector" in the EC who votes differently from expected.

I don't think this has ever actually affected the result of a presidential election--at least not in recent times--but it certainly could. I wonder if people think that is a good thing.

Let us say a strong 3d party candidate emerged who won a few states and prevented an electoral majority. With the polarization of the EC in recent elections into red states and blue states, it might only take a few states won by a 3d party candidate to block an EC majority by either the Dems or the Reps.

In such a case, there would probably be a lot of backroom negotiations to try to get the EC members from the 3d party to back one of the two major parties to prevent (or ensure) the race from being sent to the House. This would place the future of the country in the hands of some very anonymous EC members. Is that a good thing?

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

there would probably be a lot of backroom negotiations to try to get the EC members from the 3d party to back one of the two major parties to prevent (or ensure) the race from being sent to the House. This would place the future of the country in the hands of some very anonymous EC members. Is that a good thing?

Probably no better than hanging poor old Chad.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

But another aspect to the EC is that the members of the EC are not just anonymous numbers--they are human beings who usually, but not always, do what they are expected to do. Once in awhile we get a "faithless elector" in the EC who votes differently from expected.

I don't think this has ever actually affected the result of a presidential election--at least not in recent times--but it certainly could. I wonder if people think that is a good thing.

I addressed this vrey early on. On the list of bad things that could happen in elections, it's incredibly far down the list.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I think one of the VERY MOST UN-American things is the Gerymandering of districts....

I would do away with that stupidity.... and make no districts at all.. just do it by the number of people in the state.. you get X amount of representatives in the House.

That way you could get rid of all those SAFE districts based on the 2 party system based on wealth and race etc... in given districts.

And then in the case of California, people in true Northern California and those living off I-395 would have no representation, and those in the valley would be underrepresented.

Districts are essential. Unfortunately, it's not a trivial matter to define and then ban gerrymandering. The offenders are like art - you know it when you see it. Maybe you can device some metrics based on the ratio of the length of the borders to the area, which would eliminate the very ugly looking districts, but you still can't stop the powers that be from carving out safe districts for each side.

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

I addressed this vrey early on. On the list of bad things that could happen in elections, it's incredibly far down the list.

Well you addressed the question of faithless electors from the major parties in a two-party election.

I'm talking about a three-party election where no candidate polls a majority. We've certain had strong 3d party candidates from time to time in our history: Perot, Wallace, Thurmond, etc. We've been fortunate that no such candidate has yet split the EC forcing the race into the House. But given that we seem to produce strong 3d party candidates with some regularity, I think it is only a matter of time before the scenario I describe happens.

So imagine this scenario: no candidate polls a majority. The 3d party electors know that if the race goes into the House, their candidate cannot possibly win, because the House consists only of members from the two main parties.

Would the 3d party electors, knowing that they have the power to pick the winner from the two major parties, remain loyal to their candidate, knowing that in doing so they would give up what power they have? We've never had that situation so it is uncharted territory.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Well you addressed the question of faithless electors from the major parties in a two-party election.

I'm talking about a three-party election where no candidate polls a majority. We've certain had strong 3d party candidates from time to time in our history: Perot, Wallace, Thurmond, etc. We've been fortunate that no such candidate has yet split the EC forcing the race into the House. But given that we seem to produce strong 3d party candidates with some regularity, I think it is only a matter of time before the scenario I describe happens.

So imagine this scenario: no candidate polls a majority. The 3d party electors know that if the race goes into the House, their candidate cannot possibly win, because the House consists only of members from the two main parties.

Would the 3d party electors, knowing that they have the power to pick the winner from the two major parties, remain loyal to their candidate, knowing that in doing so they would give up what power they have? We've never had that situation so it is uncharted territory.

Isn't the second round from the VP candidates?

[misaltas 0]

Quote

You can't just pick and choose certain areas because you don't understand the purpose underpinning it and it doesn't 'feel' right.

Sure, until one peels back the reason why it doesn't feel right. Could be because over the 200+ years since the US was constitutionalized, and especially over the past 50, the federal gov't has grown much stronger than I feel the framers intended. And its citizens feel that overbearing weight moved onto their shoulders, and we end up feeling more like a monolithic country and less like a federation of states.

Take federal income taxes and other fed taxes, hundreds of new federal laws each congressional session, the bloated executive cabinet performing functions which the states or lower should handle.

If the states had been able to retain as much power and control over themselves as the constitution originally intended, proportionally at least, I think there would be a lot more americans understanding of how and why the EC is and works the way it does.

Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts